Have you guys seen this guide that came in this months GRM? It tells you want tire pressure, camber settings and spring rates you should run with the new Azenis RT-615...based on certain Tein suspension systems. One page is for Time Attack/Grip/Road Race Spec and the other is for Drift Spec. I'm only referring to the TA/G/RR specs here. Some of the spring rates and camber settings seem way off to me. I drive a '98 Integra and my buddy drives a '90 SI for example, and the setup listed for 205/50-15" tires (our size) is:

1994-2001 Acura Integra RS, LS, GS, GSR, Type-R

Front (F) PSI: 30-35
Rear (R) PSI: 30-35
F Spring Rate: 1232
R Spring Rate: 784
F Camber: -1.8
R Camber: -2.5

1989 Honda Civic Hatchback (EF)

Front (F) PSI: 27
Rear (R) PSI: 27
F Spring Rate: 448
R Spring Rate: 224
F Camber: -1.0
R Camber: 0.0

Do these make any sense at all for a STS car on Azenis or am I just dumb? Thanks

 

i think it also depends how they person drives and how the course is set up. iono about those springs rates though, seems kind of...off

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Type_RS_59 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">based on certain Tein suspension systems.</TD></TR></TABLE>
There's your answer right there.

Just ignore it all.

 

maybe it's based on selling more tires? They should tell people to run 2 degrees of toe out for all-out performance (and 200 miles of treadwear)

to me the rates seem high for the teg, low for civic. Camber seems too high in the rear and too low in the front on the Teg. The air pressures seem low for Azenis, but I'm used to everyone saying to run high pressures on the 215s ... [shrug]

 

Those camber settings make no goddamn sense whatsoever. -2.5 in the *rear*?!?! Que la ****, mate?

 

Man, 224 in the rear, maybe I should just use a slinky!!!

 

I have no idea on the Civic setup, but the Integra setup almost makes sense in a weird sort of way. With spring rates that high, you're going to have very little body roll, so you won't need as much static camber. Having that much rear camber is kinda weird, but maybe it's their way of reducing grip on that end to make up for the lower spring rates?

Definitely a "JDM" setup.

 

I think I need to look at my GRM again, I didnt even notice this piece (of garbage). Seems highly unlike them to publish something like this.

 

what page is this info on id like check this out.

 

http://www.falkentire.com/615micro.htm - scroll to around the middle of the page

 

Just to a quick look at the data and it looks like all the data gives is the suggested tire pressure for a tire on the suspension listed.

Hence, they give the suggested tire pressure for the 205/50 15 on the 89 EF with a Tein SSD suspension setup. It doesn't seem any more technical than that. The TEIN SSD, I beleive is for better street performance and looks, not neccisarly the best set-up for auto-x, hence the low (low in that they don't seem high enough to promote good rotation....) rear spring rates.

My 2 cents.... just a quick look. I will look into it more later.

 

OH, you're talking about the Falken tire ad in GRM. I dont read the ads lol.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by skierd &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">OH, you're talking about the Falken tire ad in GRM. I dont read the ads lol.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I actually have been running lower pressures with my 615s. It may have something to do with the fact that every event has been in the rain so far this season.

 

i know there spring rates are off. im running similar rates and the car makes too much wheel spin due to the soft rear rates. it rotates 'ok' or worn, almost dead azenis in the back. i drove tad kaminski's old car that was stiffer in the rear than mine and it had no wheel spin issues.

 

Does anyone else find the humor in that they are giving Time Attack/Road Race Spec advice for street tires?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RineRacing &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Does anyone else find the humor in that they are giving Time Attack/Road Race Spec advice for street tires?
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I use mine for track days because I can only afford so many sets of wheels and tires. I probably do 10-12 autocrosses and 2 track days a year and I've only had to replace 2 Azenis per year since I started running them. It's cheaper to replace my Azenis every year than to buy race rubber every other year.

 

Umm...looks like a GT4 setup.

 

The Falken pull-out ad is kinda lame and hurts their credibility.

Why? First, the ad copy is horrible -- it reads like the intended audience was investors or upper management, but with some extra, useless marketing hyperbole thrown in.

And what's up with the graphs? What is the scale they're using for the Increased Performance graph, percentage? What is "Circuit Grip"? "Circuit Handling?

And what about the Wet Lateral G graph? The units are meaningless.

And I think it's telling that there is no *dry* lateral G graph (not that it would be interpretable). Further, I think it's poor marketing to reveal that they failed to improve dry and wet braking (see Increased Performance graph).

Look at the Circuit Time graph -- it looks like they stretched the top parallelogram of the RT-215 bar to increase the height difference between it and the RT-614. But when you look at the Y-axis times, you see that they were probably smart to do it anyway: the difference between the two tires is just a couple tenths of a second. Actually, it's not possible to tell what, exactly, the difference is because of parallax problems with the 3-D bars -- the bars' respective values are indeterminate.

On to the final chart/graph. The accompanying text says that they omitted the "heavy steel construction...without any compromise in lateral or vertical spring rate"; however, the chart clearly shows the opposite is true. Also, they used a 45 aspect ratio tire; I wonder how those numbers would look for 50 and 60 series tires. I also wonder if there's an 8% weight reduction on their larger tires (they used a 195/60-14 tire as an example).

So which is it: just a bad ad or deliberate obfuscation of the new tires' performance?

Why so critical? Cuz if you read the forums and check the prices these days, it seems to me that you're paying more money for a tire that isn't as stiff, doesn't handle the dry (or wet) appreciably better, and still gets greasy (okay, so maybe you get an extra run in before you start spraying).

Is the RT-615 to the RT-215 what the A3S04 was to the A3S03?